In defense of Babolat and the "Modern Game"....

Although my "adventure" through various racquets has been significant, I admit it is nowhere near the extent of numerous other (if not most other) posters on here. To summarize, since the mid-to-late 90s, I have proceeded through the use of a then Head TiS6, POG Mid, PS85, Fischer Vacuum Pro 90 (MIA), Volkl C10, a litany of Head Prestiges/Pro Tours (including the Prestige Pro, Prestige Pro 600, Prestige 600, Prestige Classics, PT280s, PT630s) in addition to a few other random sticks (ESTUSA Powerbeam Braided and Microgel Radical MP). While I can appreciate the charm and/or specialty of most of those noted, I recently tried a few of the more popular Babolat sticks (i.e. the APDGT and the PDR 2012) - and things have indeed clearly changed.

Although the number of threads on Babolat are numerous, they are almost universally tainted by the comments of those with an inexplicable distaste/bias towards the company. While I appreciate that certain aspects of analyzing racquets are subjective, others clearly are not. In the more objective sense, and after accounting for the time needed to "dial in" as to the control of the racquet, the difference in HP between "modern" sticks and their 20th century brethren is stark - that's before accounting for things such as the added impact of more accessible spin.

This leads me to the following set of questions. First, if I can hit the same corner with an APDGT at +5/10 mph over a PC600 at a relative consistency, why in the world would I opt for the more "mature" and "powerless" stick? If I can do so, with added spin - why wouldn't I? If the claim is that you have to adjust for "accuracy" for the Babolat, don't you also "adjust" for power with the others? To this end, and IMHO, it's much (err, infinitely) easier to adjust for control with the APDGT than it is to adjust for power with, say, the Fischer Pro Vacuum. Yet, the Vacuum is fabled and the APDGT is reviled...

Not to offend, but perhaps this speaks directly to the nostalgia associated with some of the more "classic" sticks held by certain people (if not a significant number above a certain age). Again, while there is indeed a charm associated with these sticks, perhaps some of the posters here are doing a disservice to those truly looking to improve their game or to even commence their path along the route of tennis. To apply a different analogy, I don't think anyone would recommend Ayrton Senna's McLaren MP4/4 to a modern F1 driver, regardless of how "classic" that particular car was. Then again, perhaps the goal isn't necessarily to remain competitive/relevant in a modern sense...

Babolats, simply stated, are bad for you. The stiffness will likely shorten your tennis career due to traumatic arthritis -- this is obviously not true for everyone, but certainly the risk is increased with such stiff racquets. Is the alternative "powerless" sticks? No. There are plenty of medium stiffness racquets with ample power that will allow you to have a longer playing career.

I'm someone who uses the more "mature" and "powerless" sticks. For me their not so powerless and the feel is sublime. When i use my Speed Pro as opposed to my Redondo mid the only improvement is forgiveness which i don't necessarily need as i've never yet played someone who consistently gets the ball above my shoulders with pace and i'm 5'11. My brother had an epiphany of sorts. He changed from a Redondo MP to a YouTek Mojo and now, with his newly discovered serve, his level is higher than ever. We had our most competitive match on sunday. i won 7-6 (7-2 in the tiebreaker). He's catching up to me so i'd best not take him lightly :lol:

My point is some What you use is What YOU use. If you like Babs through and through and play well with them, then by all means use it. If you like "Players" rackets through and through and play well with them, then by all means use it.

Babolats, simply stated, are bad for you. The stiffness will likely shorten your tennis career due to traumatic arthritis -- this is obviously not true for everyone, but certainly the risk is increased with such stiff racquets. Is the alternative "powerless" sticks? No. There are plenty of medium stiffness racquets with ample power that will allow you to have a longer playing career.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply. Yes, I've heard the anecdotal claims of Babolat's stiffness giving rise to tennis elbow and other ailments. If this is a function of "stiffness" and static/dynamic weight, in your opinion, then surely this would implicate other racquets made by virtually every other current manufacturer. Further, not so quick to accept that Babolat=Health Risk without any actual data.

I'm someone who uses the more "mature" and "powerless" sticks. For me their not so powerless and the feel is sublime. When i use my Speed Pro as opposed to my Redondo mid the only improvement is forgiveness which i don't necessarily need as i've never yet played someone who consistently gets the ball above my shoulders with pace and i'm 5'11. My brother had an epiphany of sorts. He changed from a Redondo MP to a YouTek Mojo and now, with his newly discovered serve, his level is higher than ever. We had our most competitive match on sunday. i won 7-6 (7-2 in the tiebreaker). He's catching up to me so i'd best not take him lightly :lol:

My point is some What you use is What YOU use. If you like Babs through and through and play well with them, then by all means use it. If you like "Players" rackets through and through and play well with them, then by all means use it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. Totally concur with your sentiment that selection is highly subjective. Further appreciate that things such as feel may have some psychological impact during gameplay and may improve (or diminish) one's performance. To this extent, so may a racquet's cosmetics.

That being said, and perhaps this is where the problem lies for me, I don't understand the preference of "feel" over more objective qualities like "power." If you mean feel as in the confidence to locate/place shots with (relatively) consistent precision, I again see no deficiency in the APDGT relative to even a Vacuum 90 or a PC600. Each takes time to adjust, after which familiarity with their attributes take hold. If you mean "feel" as in the lack of vibration/buzzing/etc. - yes, perhaps, but if the objective is to win and to optimize performance, why would this reign supreme over power? Not to belabor the point, but a yonex vibration stopper renders the APDGT as a very acceptable performer in this regard, whereas nothing (aside from stringing at extremely low tension and/or with certain string type) can increase the power of the Vacuum Pro 90. To me, in a match setting, the APDGT therefore affords more aid in winning. Before anyone does ask, yes, I indeed use the same long stroke with all my racquets.

As to your comment on forgiveness, I read this to mean the racquet's ability to retain peak (or near peak) power over a greater span of the string bed. In the context of your reply, you phrased this as being a defense quality. In the same sense, would the presence of peak power throughout a larger portion of the string bed not allow for a greater offensive ability (i.e. to hit winners more consistently) - furthermore, isn't this a/the primary objective in tennis?

El Zed
If no organized data exists (and NOBODY is paying to do studies of racquet stiffness and injury), do you ignore COUNTLESS stories on this board and elsewhere of injury from very stiff racquets (and of course this applies to other brands that make equally stiff frames, though they are few). That would be moronic. Anecdotal evidence, when it is overwhelming and repeated time and time again, is as useful as any other evidence.

This leads me to the following set of questions. First, if I can hit the same corner with an APDGT at +5/10 mph over a PC600 at a relative consistency, why in the world would I opt for the more "mature" and "powerless" stick? If I can do so, with added spin - why wouldn't I?

Click to expand...

Because you will eventually pay for it with your arm and wrist and perhaps shoulder. There's no "free lunch" when it comes to tennis racquets, i.e., you don't get something for nothing.

That being said, and perhaps this is where the problem lies for me, I don't understand the preference of "feel" over more objective qualities like "power." If you mean feel as in the confidence to locate/place shots with (relatively) consistent precision, I again see no deficiency in the APDGT relative to even a Vacuum 90 or a PC600. Each takes time to adjust, after which familiarity with their attributes take hold. If you mean "feel" as in the lack of vibration/buzzing/etc. - yes, perhaps, but if the objective is to win and to optimize performance, why would this reign supreme over power?

Click to expand...

Some people, like me, play tennis mostly for the "feel". Winning is nice but it's not the be all and end all. I'd much rather have good "feel" and lose than have bad "feel" and win. I'm not a pro so it's not like I need to win to put food on the table.

It's like sex. Do you have sex to "win" or more for the "feel"? If you have the right racquet set-up, hitting the sweetspot can sometimes "feel" better than sex. :shock:

El Zed
If no organized data exists (and NOBODY is paying to do studies of racquet stiffness and injury), do you ignore COUNTLESS stories on this board and elsewhere of injury from very stiff racquets (and of course this applies to other brands that make equally stiff frames, though they are few). That would be moronic. Anecdotal evidence, when it is overwhelming and repeated time and time again, is as useful as any other evidence.

Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable in cases of pronounced underlying bias, which I'm sure most can agree exists against Babolat by the people here. Further, anecdotal evidence fails to take into account and/or to reflect the numerous variables involved - such as frequency of play, proper/improper form/past injuries/and the age of the player.

Nonetheless, you made your point, and we'll mark you down as being firmly in "play with Babolat, watch your arm fall off" camp. Again, not so quick to accept this as fact given the large number of people using this make - as you know 1% of 1,000,000 is greater than 1% of 100,000.

Some people, like me, play tennis mostly for the "feel". Winning is nice but it's not the be all and end all. I'd much rather have good "feel" and lose than have bad "feel" and win. I'm not a pro so it's not like I need to win to put food on the table.

It's like sex. Do you have sex to "win" or more for the "feel"? If you have the right racquet set-up, hitting the sweetspot can sometimes "feel" better than sex. :shock:

Click to expand...

That's precisely my point - the "feel" of crushing a shot in the sweet spot and seeing is drive with more pace and spin is infinitely (in my opinion) more preferable to the "feel" of hitting a comparably dead-on shot with a highly detached/muted racquet with notably less pace (which I have had ample experience with). Is it as simple as that?

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable in cases of pronounced underlying bias, which I'm sure most can agree exists against Babolat by the people here. Further, anecdotal evidence fails to take into account and/or to reflect the numerous variables involved - such as frequency of play, proper/improper form/past injuries/and the age of the player.

Nonetheless, you made your point, and we'll mark you down as being firmly in "play with Babolat, watch your arm fall off" camp. Again, not so quick to accept this as fact given the large number of people using this make - as you know 1% of 1,000,000 is greater than 1% of 100,000.

Click to expand...

It's well known that most Babolats are stiff and cause arm injuries. Most of the guys at my club that use Babolats either have to play with a strap or other contraption on their arm/elbow/wrist or are always out with arm injuries.

That's precisely my point - the "feel" of crushing a shot in the sweet spot and seeing is drive with more pace and spin is infinitely (in my opinion) more preferable to the "feel" of hitting a comparably dead-on shot with a highly detached/muted racquet with notably less pace (which I have had ample experience with). Is it as simple as that?

Click to expand...

No, I'm not talking about what happens to the ball after it leaves your racquet at all. I'm talking about the tactile sensation that your hand/arm feels when the ball hits your strings that pretty much only heavy, flexible racquets can produce. Even if you hit the ball into the net, it still "feels" incredible.

Thank you for your reply. Totally concur with your sentiment that selection is highly subjective. Further appreciate that things such as feel may have some psychological impact during gameplay and may improve (or diminish) one's performance. To this extent, so may a racquet's cosmetics.

That being said, and perhaps this is where the problem lies for me, I don't understand the preference of "feel" over more objective qualities like "power." If you mean feel as in the confidence to locate/place shots with (relatively) consistent precision, I again see no deficiency in the APDGT relative to even a Vacuum 90 or a PC600. Each takes time to adjust, after which familiarity with their attributes take hold. If you mean "feel" as in the lack of vibration/buzzing/etc. - yes, perhaps, but if the objective is to win and to optimize performance, why would this reign supreme over power? Not to belabor the point, but a yonex vibration stopper renders the APDGT as a very acceptable performer in this regard, whereas nothing (aside from stringing at extremely low tension and/or with certain string type) can increase the power of the Vacuum Pro 90. To me, in a match setting, the APDGT therefore affords more aid in winning. Before anyone does ask, yes, I indeed use the same long stroke with all my racquets.

As to your comment on forgiveness, I read this to mean the racquet's ability to retain peak (or near peak) power over a greater span of the string bed. In the context of your reply, you phrased this as being a defense quality. In the same sense, would the presence of peak power throughout a larger portion of the string bed not allow for a greater offensive ability (i.e. to hit winners more consistently) - furthermore, isn't this a/the primary objective in tennis?

Click to expand...

For me there is no real increase in power or consistency when switching for something like an APDGT to my Redondo mid. I don't play tournament but once or twice in august. Also i'm not a poly user so a "Powerless" stick becomes a bazooka if you string it right. So since i'm only playing for fun 334/365 days i prefer feel over function, but luckily for me i get both. There are some people who can't says that. As for forgiveness, what i meant was room-for-error when it come to topspin. I use a hybrid of federer-like swing with Djkovic-like swing so i'm driving the ball more often than not so i don't need the forgiveness as, while i can use modern technique for topspin, i prefer using it to drive the ball. Besides i love the trajectory of a TS drive. Low over the net then jumps up 5ft up & forward to most people's shoulders.:twisted::twisted:

No, I'm not talking about what happens to the ball after it leaves your racquet at all. I'm talking about the tactile sensation that your hand/arm feels when the ball hits your strings that pretty much only heavy, flexible racquets can produce. Even if you hit the ball into the net, it still "feels" incredible.

Click to expand...

Ha! How can you say anything feels incredible if the shot goes into the net?

For me there is no real increase in power or consistency when switching for something like an APDGT to my Redondo mid. I don't play tournament but once or twice in august. Also i'm not a poly user so a "Powerless" stick becomes a bazooka if you string it right. So since i'm only playing for fun 334/365 days i prefer feel over function, but luckily for me i get both. There are some people who can't says that. As for forgiveness, what i meant was room-for-error when it come to topspin. I use a hybrid of federer-like swing with Djkovic-like swing so i'm driving the ball more often than not so i don't need the forgiveness as, while i can use modern technique for topspin, i prefer using it to drive the ball. Besides i love the trajectory of a TS drive. Low over the net then jumps up 5ft up & forward to most people's shoulders.:twisted::twisted:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. See, I thought the APDGT out powers even a Prestige 600 with full natural gut - with comparable consistency when dialed into both (which itself, takes relatively the same amount of time).

Funny enough, I believe we both have the same forehand style (at least in terms of judging the end product). Thought the APDGT just had more bit in delivery than pretty much everything that I've used. Perhaps I'm recouping from the ultimate disappointment of the Pro Vacuum 90 - that was the smoothest, most effortless racquet to swing, amazing BH slices, but a total dud (pace wise) in terms of the forehand. Just came across as so "technically" perfect, yet utterly soulless.

I started playing with a "red" Head Professional back in the 80's, moved on to a Pro Staff, then came back to 2 different Head Radicals. I thought I would probably stick with those 2brands from now on.

My son started playing and ended up demo'ing a Pure Drive at a country club,,,,we ended up buying 2 of them and his game has improved quickly with them. After convincing me to try one for an extended time, I've just purchased a Pure Drive Roddick.

It may be the best thing that has happened to my game. Shots that I was losing a grip on with age have come back and the modern swings are just fantastic with a Bab. The frames play well with multis, polys, hybrids, gut, etc....

Thanks for the reply. See, I thought the APDGT out powers even a Prestige 600 with full natural gut - with comparable consistency when dialed into both (which itself, takes relatively the same amount of time).

Funny enough, I believe we both have the same forehand style (at least in terms of judging the end product). Thought the APDGT just had more bit in delivery than pretty much everything that I've used. Perhaps I'm recouping from the ultimate disappointment of the Pro Vacuum 90 - that was the smoothest, most effortless racquet to swing, amazing BH slices, but a total dud (pace wise) in terms of the forehand. Just came across as so "technically" perfect, yet utterly soulless.

Click to expand...

First, glad you like your racquet and I am not going to try and change your mind. "Out powers" in this context is a complex thing. I believe that your racquet has more inherent power per se. However, the Prestige is heavier and has a higher swingwieght. If one can swing both racquets with equal speed/velocity, because the Prestige has more mass it will generally impart more force all other things being equal. But, they are not. Bottomline, it truly is a matter of preference and swing styles. Some people can hit just as hard (or hit just as heavy a ball) with a Prestige as they can with a Bab. I further would agree that its is generally eaisier to create more spin with the Bab especially over a closed patterned Prestige.
As it relates to injuries-some people do fine with the Pure Drive or AeroPro, otherhs have problems. Racquet stiffness is just one factor in injury causation.

I started playing with a "red" Head Professional back in the 80's, moved on to a Pro Staff, then came back to 2 different Head Radicals. I thought I would probably stick with those 2brands from now on.

My son started playing and ended up demo'ing a Pure Drive at a country club,,,,we ended up buying 2 of them and his game has improved quickly with them. After convincing me to try one for an extended time, I've just purchased a Pure Drive Roddick.

It may be the best thing that has happened to my game. Shots that I was losing a grip on with age have come back and the modern swings are just fantastic with a Bab. The frames play well with multis, polys, hybrids, gut, etc....

Really wish folks wouldn't talk the brand down. They are very good.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply, and the affirmation of my exact sentiment. Unfortunately, it appears as though Babolat is viewed as being an iconoclast with respect to something held very near & dear to the hearts of a number of posters - the feel of a racquet in the post-wood era. Unfortunately, it's this apparent aversion to change that has given rise to a lot of misinformation (either purposeful or misguided). Of course, this isn't meant with respect to those that have tried the racquet and earnestly prefer other sticks.

No, Babolat isn't a "magic" stick, but it's also not evil incarnate. To those that like it, it is very hard to beat.

ollinger "Babolats, simply stated, are bad for you. The stiffness will likely shorten your tennis career due to traumatic arthritis"

BreakPoint "It's well known that most Babolats are stiff and cause arm injuries."

Apparently there a few here that will believe anything they hear & repeat it as if they are actually well informed. The 2 posters here don't seem to acknowledge that Babolat makes several racquets that are not extremely stiff & that many other manufacturers make racquets as stiff or stiffer than Babolats stiffest.
I apologize if this offends some, but IMO gross generalizations & nonfactual statements are not very helpful.

Now select a wilson prostaff 6.0 85 vs a APDGT and you will see that because of the greater mass the prostaff actually has a greater power potential than its so-called "modern" replacement. Even the pacific x feel pro 90 vacuum rates better in this regard.

Babolats are simply light and stiff so 3.0's can whip their arms around extra fast to generate good topspin and ruin their arms. Babolats goal is give the consumer great short term results in a demo to buy the stick and not return calls three months later when they complain about TE.

But better players do not need this gimmick as good technique and heavier rackets produce a more consistent heavy ball. That is why you see pros adding huge amounts of lead to the their frames-they want them to play more like the older players frames of yesteryear.

Anyway, to say that pros lead up their rackets so as to feel like the "rackets of yesteryear" is probably false. If they wanted the old racket feel, they would use the old rackets. Plain and simple. They add lead to make their rackets more stable and perform how they want them to. Vika isn't going to be able to return Serena's serve with an 11.3 oz racket

Although my "adventure" through various racquets has been significant, I admit it is nowhere near the extent of numerous other (if not most other) posters on here. To summarize, since the mid-to-late 90s, I have proceeded through the use of a then Head TiS6, POG Mid, PS85, Fischer Vacuum Pro 90 (MIA), Volkl C10, a litany of Head Prestiges/Pro Tours (including the Prestige Pro, Prestige Pro 600, Prestige 600, Prestige Classics, PT280s, PT630s) in addition to a few other random sticks (ESTUSA Powerbeam Braided and Microgel Radical MP). While I can appreciate the charm and/or specialty of most of those noted, I recently tried a few of the more popular Babolat sticks (i.e. the APDGT and the PDR 2012) - and things have indeed clearly changed.

Although the number of threads on Babolat are numerous, they are almost universally tainted by the comments of those with an inexplicable distaste/bias towards the company. While I appreciate that certain aspects of analyzing racquets are subjective, others clearly are not. In the more objective sense, and after accounting for the time needed to "dial in" as to the control of the racquet, the difference in HP between "modern" sticks and their 20th century brethren is stark - that's before accounting for things such as the added impact of more accessible spin.

This leads me to the following set of questions. First, if I can hit the same corner with an APDGT at +5/10 mph over a PC600 at a relative consistency, why in the world would I opt for the more "mature" and "powerless" stick? If I can do so, with added spin - why wouldn't I? If the claim is that you have to adjust for "accuracy" for the Babolat, don't you also "adjust" for power with the others? To this end, and IMHO, it's much (err, infinitely) easier to adjust for control with the APDGT than it is to adjust for power with, say, the Fischer Pro Vacuum. Yet, the Vacuum is fabled and the APDGT is reviled...

Not to offend, but perhaps this speaks directly to the nostalgia associated with some of the more "classic" sticks held by certain people (if not a significant number above a certain age). Again, while there is indeed a charm associated with these sticks, perhaps some of the posters here are doing a disservice to those truly looking to improve their game or to even commence their path along the route of tennis. To apply a different analogy, I don't think anyone would recommend Ayrton Senna's McLaren MP4/4 to a modern F1 driver, regardless of how "classic" that particular car was. Then again, perhaps the goal isn't necessarily to remain competitive/relevant in a modern sense...

Click to expand...

There is some truth to what you are saying about some of the traditionalist that don't like the new age sticks.

But I don't agree that most players can hit the same shots with the same control using a pure drive compared to a lower powered stick. I know I cant, I love the power and spin that I get out of a bab, but there is nowhere near the control that I need to play my best.

Plus these stiff rackets are hard on the arm whether you believe it or not. When a racket has a stiffness rating of over 70 there is no way in hell that it can be arm friendly.

Now select a wilson prostaff 6.0 85 vs a APDGT and you will see that because of the greater mass the prostaff actually has a greater power potential than its so-called "modern" replacement. Even the pacific x feel pro 90 vacuum rates better in this regard.

Babolats are simply light and stiff so 3.0's can whip their arms around extra fast to generate good topspin and ruin their arms. Babolats goal is give the consumer great short term results in a demo to buy the stick and not return calls three months later when they complain about TE.

But better players do not need this gimmick as good technique and heavier rackets produce a more consistent heavy ball. That is why you see pros adding huge amounts of lead to the their frames-they want them to play more like the older players frames of yesteryear.

Click to expand...

I agree that babs do make it easier for people with short swings, but there is no way that the modern pro wants their rackets to play like those clunkers of yesteryear. Most would not even know what those clubs feel like because they grew up with modern rackets.

I'm guilty of damning Babolat in total but really should note that the (less popular) Pure Storm line is control oriented and mostly army friendly, especially the PSLGT.

The problem with their other lines imo is that many (not all) frames are very light, stiff, with large heads for huge power and a light swing feel.

For most rec players there are usually one of two results: elbow pain from poor form due to an inability to control that immense power except by arming the ball tentively...or elbow pain from an attempt to tame that power with full poly that, these being rec players, often remains in the frame long after it's dead and an even greater threat to arm health (they're not pros after all restringing after every match).

They seem designed for professionals with the skill to tame the power with great technique (especially great timing for topapin) and/or constant restringing with fresh, full poly. And yet every weekend I see members at our club banging away with their APDs and Pure Drives, usually with a brace in their wrist or elbow. A couple of weeks ago my son met another 12-year old mini-Nadal swinging an APD with full poly who grasped his arm in pain on several occassions.

Finally, like Wilson, Babolat QC is terrible. Trying to find two frames that play nearly the same is very difficult.

I enjoyed the Pure Storm products but the rest of the lines leave me cold (and in pain when I've tried them!)

There is some truth to what you are saying about some of the traditionalist that don't like the new age sticks.

But I don't agree that most players can hit the same shots with the same control using a pure drive compared to a lower powered stick. I know I cant, I love the power and spin that I get out of a bab, but there is nowhere near the control that I need to play my best.

Plus these stiff rackets are hard on the arm whether you believe it or not. When a racket has a stiffness rating of over 70 there is no way in hell that it can be arm friendly.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. I'm not saying that most players can hit the same shots with all sticks. On the contrary, I appreciate that that various sticks have their unique characteristics that indeed play into one's preference. What I am saying, however, is the apparent tendency of some to rate subjective "feel" over actual, objective performance. I have little issue admitting that the best frame in terms of what's been addressed as feel was the Fischer Vacuum Pro 90, but in now way shape or form is that racquet comparable in terms of pace and velocity of shots as the APDGT.

As to the stiff racquet argument, I accept the proposition that stiffer racquets may be more problematic - however, that's presuming that all else remains equal amongst the racquets at issue. Frankly, I believe we are largely unaware of such variables as layup - for instance, how much twaron does my Prestige Pro 600 actually include?

Now select a wilson prostaff 6.0 85 vs a APDGT and you will see that because of the greater mass the prostaff actually has a greater power potential than its so-called "modern" replacement. Even the pacific x feel pro 90 vacuum rates better in this regard.

Babolats are simply light and stiff so 3.0's can whip their arms around extra fast to generate good topspin and ruin their arms. Babolats goal is give the consumer great short term results in a demo to buy the stick and not return calls three months later when they complain about TE.

But better players do not need this gimmick as good technique and heavier rackets produce a more consistent heavy ball. That is why you see pros adding huge amounts of lead to the their frames-they want them to play more like the older players frames of yesteryear.

Click to expand...

Mostly cheap in what way? Are they pure graphite, no, but their construction is no worse than say a Microgel Radical.

Also, and apologies if I'm mistaken, but the link you referenced doesn't necessarily help in that there is one set of variables for each of the four racquets. Of course the racquet with the greatest swing-weight is going to have the "heaviest" or "quickest" ball, but that's presuming you are approaching your shot in the same manner for a racquet with a swing-weight of 350 than one at 315. You're not. There is always going to be some variance - whether it is pure swing, racquet angle, etc. Again, apologies if I misunderstood the chart as I only spent a few seconds with it, but the aforementioned issue became evident rather quickly.

You're remaining points also don't ring true to me. First, you say that "Babolats are simply light and stiff so 3.0's can whip their arms around extra fast to generate good topspin and ruin their arms." Unstrung at 11.3 oz and a swing weight of 331 isn't "light." Afterall, the IG Prestige Mid has a swing-weight of only 317 in comparison. You next say that "Babolats goal is give the consumer great short term results in a demo to buy the stick and not return calls three months later when they complain about TE." Sorry, but I think your bias is shining through here.

Thank you for your reply. I'm not saying that most players can hit the same shots with all sticks. On the contrary, I appreciate that that various sticks have their unique characteristics that indeed play into one's preference. What I am saying, however, is the apparent tendency of some to rate subjective "feel" over actual, objective performance. I have little issue admitting that the best frame in terms of what's been addressed as feel was the Fischer Vacuum Pro 90, but in now way shape or form is that racquet comparable in terms of pace and velocity of shots as the APDGT.

As to the stiff racquet argument, I accept the proposition that stiffer racquets may be more problematic - however, that's presuming that all else remains equal amongst the racquets at issue. Frankly, I believe we are largely unaware of such variables as layup - for instance, how much twaron does my Prestige Pro 600 actually include?

Click to expand...

I am a top spin player and love the spin and pop off the court that a bab gives me, but I will hit to many shots long in match play with these rackets which to me are rocket launchers.

If I use a racket like these I need to string it tight which just makes it worse on the arm. I am using a prince rebel 98 now which gives similar spin like a pure drive, but with much better control and comfort.

I'm guilty of damning Babolat in total but really should note that the (less popular) Pure Storm line is control oriented and mostly army friendly, especially the PSLGT.

The problem with their other lines imo is that many (not all) frames are very light, stiff, with large heads for huge power and a light swing feel.

For most rec players there are usually one of two results: elbow pain from poor form due to an inability to control that immense power except by arming the ball tentively...or elbow pain from an attempt to tame that power with full poly that, these being rec players, often remains in the frame long after it's dead and an even greater threat to arm health (they're not pros after all restringing after every match).

They seem designed for professionals with the skill to tame the power with great technique (especially great timing for topapin) and/or constant restringing with fresh, full poly. And yet every weekend I see members at our club banging away with their APDs and Pure Drives, usually with a brace in their wrist or elbow. A couple of weeks ago my son met another 12-year old mini-Nadal swinging an APD with full poly who grasped his arm in pain on several occassions.

Finally, like Wilson, Babolat QC is terrible. Trying to find two frames that play nearly the same is very difficult.

I enjoyed the Pure Storm products but the rest of the lines leave me cold (and in pain when I've tried them!)

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply and compliment, I appreciate it.

I guess, I should have prefaced my post by saying that I was fully a member of the "classic racquet" club to the point that even considering the use of a Babolat was near heresy. After actually giving them a prolonged demo - most notably the APDGT - it was clear that they are indeed great racquets if you're willing to accept the modern feel. I appreciate that people have an affinity for classics, but I can't get past the example of an old air-cooled Porsche being pit against a modern water-cooled variant. While one has certain unmistakable charm, the other is undoubtedly superior from a performance perspective. I completely appreciate that some people "gel" better with certain racquets than others - but for me, why would I not consider the APDGT superior to a PC600/PT630 if I can get similar control and +5/10 mph with the former?

I guess my ultimate goal was to maximize controlled power. I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that this was the primary goal of other players. I accept the preference of some for "feel," and the subjective nature of defining feel. But that being said, I believe lost in the whole "Babolat" bashing on this board is exactly what you just brought up - the immense potential of this stick once utilized correctly. Thus, it's apparently a question of risk/reward and what racquet has the most potential upside. After all, isn't this the whole appeal of a player's stick - the inherent belief that a racquet is capable of delivering superlative performance if one's ability is to that level? At a slightly reduced weight of 11.3 oz unstrung, the APDGT is further similar to a pro stock in that it affords some room for leading-up.

Mostly cheap in what way? Are they pure graphite, no, but their construction is no worse than say a Microgel Radical.

Also, and apologies if I'm mistaken, but the link you referenced doesn't necessarily help in that there is one set of variables for each of the four racquets. Of course the racquet with the greatest swing-weight is going to have the "heaviest" or "quickest" ball, but that's presuming you are approaching your shot in the same manner for a racquet with a swing-weight of 350 than one at 315. You're not. There is always going to be some variance - whether it is pure swing, racquet angle, etc. Again, apologies if I misunderstood the chart as I only spent a few seconds with it, but the aforementioned issue became evident rather quickly.

You're remaining points also don't ring true to me. First, you say that "Babolats are simply light and stiff so 3.0's can whip their arms around extra fast to generate good topspin and ruin their arms." Unstrung at 11.3 oz and a swing weight of 331 isn't "light." Afterall, the IG Prestige Mid has a swing-weight of only 317 in comparison.

Click to expand...

11.3 oz is the strung weight, not the unstrung weight. And there is a big difference in elbow safety between a heavy players racket with a higher swingweight and a lighter racket that compensates with a less headlight balance to achieve that 331 swingweight. There is a lot of info about specs and how they relate to elbow/shoulder/wrist safety here http://www.racquetresearch.com/

I am a top spin player and love the spin and pop off the court that a bab gives me, but I will hit to many shots long in match play with these rackets which to me are rocket launchers.

If I use a racket like these I need to string it tight which just makes it worse on the arm. I am using a prince rebel 98 now which gives similar spin like a pure drive, but with much better control and comfort.

Click to expand...

Definitely understand the issue of comfort and have discussed it above. That being said, multi in the low 50s has rendered the racquet comfortable enough to the point that this is not a negative in my book. Again, however, I understand that's totally subjective.

In terms of your optimal shot with both the PD and the Rebel 98, which has the higher ceiling? If the PD, why not improve one's game to the point where you can hit consistently with it? Perhaps that is why people are so enamored with the APDGT - when they watch Nadal, they see what the racquet is capable of in various facets on a consistent basis. If the bar is too high with those attempting to model themselves after Nadal, then shouldn't this line of reason also carry over to those intending to replicate Federer/Sampras/Edberg/etc. with the Pro Staffs. Again, perhaps the vitriol is based off of the novelty of the aerodynamic design and its contrast - essentially - to every other racquet out there.

Not the shoulder, the heavier frames are bad for your shoulder not the stiffer ones.

Click to expand...

But I have heard of Babolats also causing shoulder problems. The most well known one being Roddick. I guess if the shock and vibration are bad enough, it could transmit from your hand to your arm and up to your shoulder.

11.3 oz is the strung weight, not the unstrung weight. And there is a big difference in elbow safety between a heavy players racket with a higher swingweight and a lighter racket that compensates with a less headlight balance to achieve that 331 swingweight. There is a lot of info about specs and how they relate to elbow/shoulder/wrist safety here http://www.racquetresearch.com/

Click to expand...

You're indeed correct about the unstrung versus strung weight.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always been under the impression that static weight is less significant than swing-weight from a performance and health perspective. The former coming into play more predominantly in terms of muscle exhaustion (from the sheer process of holding an object with defined mass for a prolonged period). After all, in addition to its "feel," wasn't this one of the highly admired features of the Fischer Pro Vacuum 90 - it's relatively low swing-weight given it similar weight to other player's frames. Also, we need to keep some things in perspective - we're not discussing the difference between a 8/9 oz TiS6 with a wooden frame - we're talking about 11.3 oz frame versus frames in the low 12 oz range. Also, isn't it accepted that heavier racquets are more apt to cause shoulder/rotator cuff issues?

idk i like the feel of the Bab frames. i string apdc with poly at a smart low tension, or a synth gut around 54. i get pretty awesome pop off of my shots from all areas of the court. people have been getting tennis elbow since the days of 14 oz woodies and gut.

Ha! How can you say anything feels incredible if the shot goes into the net?

Click to expand...

OK, you're obviously not getting it. Maybe you've never played with a racquet with incredible feel? Or maybe you're unable to discern the differences in feel between different racquets?

I'm talking about physical feel, not emotional feel. Like how you feel it physically when someone punches you in the gut, not emotional feel like when a girl breaks your heart. So it's NOT - "I just hit a blazing winner and won the match so I feel great!". IT'S - "I just hit the ball into the net and the sensation in my hand and arm feels like it's having an orgasm!".

So the "feel" most of us here are talking about is a characteristic of your racquet and string set-up, NOT your state of mind. Do you get it now?

Arm and shoulder issues have been around since the dawn of the game. It doesn't get much more "arm-friendly" than a 14 oz Kramer or Maxply, with a flex of 40 (I'm guessing here) and strung with nat. gut, and yet folks came down with tendonitis et al. all of the time playing those sticks - myself being one of the legions of folks to search for more forgiveness in a lighter, more manageable package - ergo the prince pro, then graphite, and so on. So I think it's an issue of mechanics, prerequisite strength, sensible use, and adequate rest. Pitchers (and catchers) come down with pitcher's elbow, and they're not striking anything. So I think the stiffness issue is overrated when it comes to elbow issues honestly. I know others have had different experiences, but to me, it's an occupational hazard of the game, not so much of a specific type of racquet. The pros hit as many balls in a couple of weeks as most rec folks hit in a year or more - with pretty stiff set-ups; but then Jimmy Tennis drags his flabby *** out to hit after watching the US Open, buys a Bab because Rafa uses it, hits with the crummiest technique imaginable, shanks 36 balls in a row, and then proclaims (to the internet, since nobody else will listen), "This Bab is ****E! - it ruined my arm!!"
Nosiree, I think the Babos and others are ok - it's more the technique and relative fitness of its user that matters. Inadequate musculature = strained tendons, plain and simple.

OK, you're obviously not getting it. Maybe you've never played with a racquet with incredible feel? Or maybe you're unable to discern the differences in feel between different racquets?

I'm talking about physical feel, not emotional feel. Like how you feel it physically when someone punches you in the gut, not emotional feel like when a girl breaks your heart. So it's NOT - "I just hit a blazing winner and won the match so I feel great!". IT'S - "I just hit the ball into the net and the sensation in my hand and arm feels like it's having an orgasm!".

So the "feel" most of us here are talking about is a characteristic of your racquet and string set-up, NOT your state of mind. Do you get it now?

Click to expand...

Hey, buddy, no reason to take a condescending tone. Amazingly enough your definition of "feel" is not something that I'm failing to grasp. I'm happy you prefer the "feel" of your racquet - even at the expense of placing a shot into the net. To me, my preferred "feel" is associated with maximized controlled velocity - i.e. crushing a shot and having it land exactly where I intended - not the feeling of a "muted" or disconnected racquet, not the feel of a racquet wrapped in cotton, and most certainly not a racquet that provides "arm... orgasm" as you so eloquently put it. I'm not looking for a racquet that massages my arm, I'm looking for one that helps me maximize control and power in a competitive setting.

As to not playing with a racquet with "incredibly" feel - I have used the original Head Prestige, the Prestige Pro, the Prestige Pro 600, the Fischer Vacuum 90 (Made in Austria), the Pro Staff 85, the POG Mid, the Volkl C10, in addition to a variety of pro-stocks. You tell me, do these racquets lack "incredible feel"?

Arm and shoulder issues have been around since the dawn of the game. It doesn't get much more "arm-friendly" than a 14 oz Kramer or Maxply, with a flex of 40 (I'm guessing here) and strung with nat. gut, and yet folks came down with tendonitis et al. all of the time playing those sticks - myself being one of the legions of folks to search for more forgiveness in a lighter, more manageable package - ergo the prince pro, then graphite, and so on. So I think it's an issue of mechanics, prerequisite strength, sensible use, and adequate rest. Pitchers (and catchers) come down with pitcher's elbow, and they're not striking anything. So I think the stiffness issue is overrated when it comes to elbow issues honestly. I know others have had different experiences, but to me, it's an occupational hazard of the game, not so much of a specific type of racquet. The pros hit as many balls in a couple of weeks as most rec folks hit in a year or more - with pretty stiff set-ups; but then Jimmy Tennis drags his flabby *** out to hit after watching the US Open, buys a Bab because Rafa uses it, hits with the crummiest technique imaginable, shanks 36 balls in a row, and then proclaims (to the internet, since nobody else will listen), "This Bab is ****E! - it ruined my arm!!"
Nosiree, I think the Babos and others are ok - it's more the technique and relative fitness of its user that matters. Inadequate musculature = strained tendons, plain and simple.

What I am saying, however, is the apparent tendency of some to rate subjective "feel" over actual, objective performance.

Click to expand...

But for me, "feel" = "performance". I judge a racquet by its "feel", first and foremost regardless of the results I get with it. If it doesn't "feel" good to me, I won't use it even if I win every match 6-0, 6-0. :shock:

But for me, "feel" = "performance". I judge a racquet by its "feel", first and foremost regardless of the results I get with it. If it doesn't "feel" good to me, I won't use it even if I win every match 6-0, 6-0. :shock:

Click to expand...

To each his own. I am more willing to look past some vibrations or other subjective feel issues and to use a dampener for a racquet that can increase my accuracy and/or pace.

11.3 oz. STRUNG is very light to me as all my racquets are around 12.5-13.0 oz. strung.

Click to expand...

Already acknowledged the mistake above. Of all the racquets sold on Tennis Warehouse, only 5 are in range of 12.5 to 13 oz. Of these, only 3 have a swing weight higher than the APDGT. Only is the APDGT so consistently derided for being a "light racquet," however.

Again, I appreciate that player's racquets are generally held to be above 12 oz strung, but you are making it sound like the APDGT is a titanium racquet or the TiS6 at 8/9 oz. It isn't, and it has a very respectable swing-weight. I don't necessarily consider it a negative that it doesn't have a high swing weight yet retains the plow-through associated with its swing weight.

As to not playing with a racquet with "incredibly" feel - I have used the original Head Prestige, the Prestige Pro, the Prestige Pro 600, the Fischer Vacuum 90 (Made in Austria), the Pro Staff 85, the POG Mid, the Volkl C10, in addition to a variety of pro-stocks. You tell me, do these racquets lack "incredible feel"?

Click to expand...

So that's the "feel" we're referring to. The "feel" of the racquet itself. Not that you "feel" great because you just hit a blazing winner into the corner. I think most of us here care more about the "feel" of the racquet itself.